Colorado Jeff,
You lucky devil! There is a big swap meet this weekend at the fair grounds
in Decatur, Texas. Decatur is north of Ft Worth on 287, the highway us
Texans take to go spend money on the slopes in Colorado. It starts on
Friday and goes through Sunday. Big day will be Saturday. Yep, I plan
to go. If you need other info send me an e-mail direct.
As for area wrecking yards, try highway 80/180 (Jefferson Blvd) just west of
Loop 12, between Dallas and Grand Prarie. About 2 or 3 miles of wrecking
yards, side by side, including Your Ford, a Ford only yard. Lots of others
all over the area. Look in the Yellow Pages. I hope this helps... Good
Luck and Have Fun.
Don W. Carrollton Tx.

I don't figure it myself. I use a PC program (from Keith Black). It lets
you put in numbers for bore, stroke, deck height (which only goes form
.010 to -.040), piston type (flat top, dish, and dome), piston valve
relief (one that is commonly left out), and head gasket thickness.

It uses these numbers to figure head gasket volume (cc), total CC
volume, and compression ratio.

I must point out that this is a cheap program, though. It also came with
a dyno program. It all cost me $9.99 (INCLUDING S&H!).

ALSO, 'Car Craft' has a very nice article in the latest issue (March
'98). BUY IT, BUY IT, BUY IT! THe article is 'How To Calculate
Compression Ration' on page 84. There is also a 'Special All-Ford
Reference Section.' It doesn't contain anything about trucks, but it
does expailn a lot about the different engine types. It is good except
fo rone little part, but......:)

In the never ending search to get my '79 351M running like new, I checked my
EGR valve tonight looking for the source of an inconsistent idle. The
manual says if I rev the engine to 2500 rpm I should see the EGR move and
then oscillate. Nothing moved. So I pulled the vacuum line off the EGR
valve and hooked up the vacuum gauge. Strong vacuum at 2500 rpm. So the
valve is bad but my understanding is that this will cause high NOx emissions
but should not affect driveability. Is this correct?

>> Gary writes:
>> >I've calculated this thing till I'm blue in the face and I can't
>> >see were you guys got 9:1 or 10:1 with a 0.010" deck clearance and
>> >70cc combustion chamber and 0.033" gasket and 3.984" stroke???
>>
>> You don't. You get about 11.9:1
>
>Steve, I divided 61.02 by 1000 and used .06102 times the CC's to get
>the volume and I get 10.99:1 now, thank you very much :-) How did
>you get 11.9:1?

>> In actuality, one of the best methods of reducing NOx is exhaust gas
>> recirculation (EGR). At part throttle applications, diluting the
>> air/fuel mixture with O2 depleted air (exhaust gases) reduces the
>> amount of available oxygen. From a chemical reaction standpoint, the
>> carbon based fuels "want" the oxygen more than the nitrogen does. In
>> an oxygen depleted atmosphere, the fuel hogs the oxygen leaving
>> little for the nitrogen to use in the formation of NOx.

I'll provide a slight correction if I may...

Yes, EGR reduces NOx, but EGR does not reduce the amount of available
oxygen, since it displaces both fuel and air. It does not change the
fuel/air ratio and reduce available oxygen. What it does is introduce
inert gases into the fuel/air mix which reduces the peak flame tempureatures.
Since nitrogen only wants to combine with oxygen at rather high temperatures,
lower cumbustion temps = lower NOx emissions.

>Rick, thanks for the dissertation :-) This is one of the best
>explainations I've seen on the purpose of the EGR. I knew it helped
>NOx, just not exactly how. I always assumed it simply cooled the
>combustion temp but the oxygen thing really makes it all come
>together for me.

You've got it right Gary, cooling the combustion temp is what it's all
about for EGR. Nitrogen and oxygen won't combine until the temps get
quite high. EGR doesn't change the A/F ratio and the amount of
*available* oxygen, since it displaces both fuel and air.
It's just a flame temp thing...

Steve

"Remember, with lunacy comes responsibility;
we have a duty to make life at least a little more
surreal for those whose lives make too much sense."
-- Trygve Lode

>Hello ford truck people,
>My brother in laws car just got stolen, as well as a friends truck and this
>has prompted me to
> put in an ignition disable switch, activated by the cigarette lighter.
>From what I understand it is preferable to disable the coil rather then
>starter. Should I put the switch "inline" on the coils positive or negative
>(ground?) wire?

Oh man, I hate to here about someones ride being stolen... )-:

I've been thinking about truck theft lately. (as a potential victim, not a
potential thief!)
With a points type ign, the thief mearly needs to lift the hood, yank loose
the hot wire to the coil, attach a 3' wire from the coil to the battery, hit
the starter relay to crank it over, and off He goes...
With an electronic ign it's a little easier to provide a disable switch for
the ign electronics.

I'm installing a setup I've used before that uses an electric fuel solenoid
and a magentic reed switch mounted in a *secret* location. You have to stick
a small magnet in the right spot (on the dash, or wherever) to get any fuel
delivery...
The theif can start it and drive it on whatever fuel is in the float bowl,
probably about 2-3 blocks, then the thing dies and He's on foot again...
It's good for car (truck)jackings too, cuz it gets the thiefs gun out of
Your face when He drives away in Your pride and joy, but leaves him stranded
just a few blocks away... (hopefully in a real conspicuous location, so even
the cops can find it)

Just food for thought, there's lotsa ways to protect Yer pride and joy...

Steve

"Remember, with lunacy comes responsibility;
we have a duty to make life at least a little more
surreal for those whose lives make too much sense."
-- Trygve Lode

Hello list, I've been reading the posts on the list for about six months
now. Now I've run into a problem I think someone out there might be
able to help me with. I have been trying to fix up a 79 F-150 for the
past four years or so (being a broke college student dosen't speed the
process any) and am near completion, well not too far off. Annyhow, I
need to find the front chrome. I had a friend give me the front chrome
from a 73, I thought it might work, and I hope it will. Will I be able
to put the 73 grille on a 79 radiator support? I know I'm going to have
some problems with the headlights and turn signals since the
turnsignals on the 79 are below the headlights where on the 73 grille
they are above the lights. Is there annything I can do with these
parts, or am I just going to have to spend the money on a 79 grille.
Thanks in advance,
Marc Stine
mstine ycp.edu

Gary,
This is something I've been thinking about. On some Ford aircleaners
the snorkel baffel is controlled by a thermostat in the snorkel. They
do not require vacuum or sensors so they are self contained. Also they
bolt onto the air cleaner housing. If someone wanted to they could cut
a hole in their air cleaner housing and bolt another snorkel onto it.
Also I have a snorkel from a 390 and one from a 360 and the 360 model is
LARGER. Go figure.

I also remember an article in Hot Rod many years ago featuring a motor
that Smokey Yunik (sp?) built that used coolant and exhaust heat to heat
the incoming air charge to help vaporize the fuel. Interesting idea
since everyone touts the use of cold air for density. He was more
concerned with vaporizing the fuel with heat so it wouldn't fall out of
the intake charge and would burn more evenly in the conbustion chamber.
No large droplets of fuel.

Se Ya!
Tom H.

Something related that most people probably don't realize is that
cold air does wonders for power at WOT but doesn't do diddly at
cruise or idle which is the only time the hot air is admitted to the
air cleaner. At cruise you need good atomization not volumetric
efficiency for best throttle response and economy. Using hot air
intake will improve economy in almost every case. If you need more
air for WOT then add another snorkle with hot air in it too :-)

From: Antonio
>Hello ford truck people,
>My brother in laws car just got stolen, as well as a friends truck and
this
>has prompted me to
> put in an ignition disable switch, activated by the cigarette lighter.
>From what I understand it is preferable to disable the coil rather
then
>starter. Should I put the switch "inline" on the coils positive or
negative
>(ground?) wire?

I wish I had better news. The old saying "If they want it, you can't
stop them from taking it" is true. It's not like on TV. Professional car
thieves are very good at what they do. But their not very impressive
people. It's funny, people say "Professional car thief" like they went
to Thieves University, belong to Taka Youra Stuffa fraternity, have a
degree in stealing. It doesn't much aptitude to be a Professional car
thief. There's no standard to achieve Professional car thief over just
the run of the mill car thief.
But if there was a way to stop them, they would be easy to spot.
They would be the ones in the parking lot walking from car to car
stomping their foot saying "Damn it, this ones got The Club too". :)
Later!

> >> In actuality, one of the best methods of reducing NOx is exhaust gas
> >> recirculation (EGR). At part throttle applications, diluting the
> >> air/fuel mixture with O2 depleted air (exhaust gases) reduces the
> >> amount of available oxygen. From a chemical reaction standpoint, the
> >> carbon based fuels "want" the oxygen more than the nitrogen does. In
> >> an oxygen depleted atmosphere, the fuel hogs the oxygen leaving
> >> little for the nitrogen to use in the formation of NOx.
>
> I'll provide a slight correction if I may...
>
> Yes, EGR reduces NOx, but EGR does not reduce the amount of available
> oxygen, since it displaces both fuel and air. It does not change the
> fuel/air ratio and reduce available oxygen. What it does is introduce
> inert gases into the fuel/air mix which reduces the peak flame tempureatures.
> Since nitrogen only wants to combine with oxygen at rather high temperatures,
> lower cumbustion temps = lower NOx emissions.
>
> >Rick, thanks for the dissertation :-) This is one of the best
> >explainations I've seen on the purpose of the EGR. I knew it helped
> >NOx, just not exactly how. I always assumed it simply cooled the
> >combustion temp but the oxygen thing really makes it all come
> >together for me.
>
> You've got it right Gary, cooling the combustion temp is what it's all
> about for EGR. Nitrogen and oxygen won't combine until the temps get
> quite high. EGR doesn't change the A/F ratio and the amount of
> *available* oxygen, since it displaces both fuel and air.
> It's just a flame temp thing...
>
> Steve
>
> "Remember, with lunacy comes responsibility;
> we have a duty to make life at least a little more
> surreal for those whose lives make too much sense."
> -- Trygve Lode
>
> +-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1961 thru 1979 --------------+
> | Send posts to fordtrucks61-79 listservice.net, |
> | List removal information is on the web site. |
> +---------- Visit Our Web Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/ ----------+

I am sorry my friend but you are incorrect. we are talking mass air flow ratios
here. EGR adds combustion gases AFTER the carburetor (the only systems I have
experience with). Notice I said "diluting the air/fuel ratio". The a/f ratio for
near stoichiometric relationship was already determined in the carb. There is, and
remains, sufficient O2 for the carbon-based fuels. Air/fuel ratio does not mean
the same as oxygen/fuel ratios. With EGR we now add "stale", ie air with low or
non-existant O2 content. The total mass of air (and air does not mean just oxygen)
now exceeds the normally required "ideal" mass of air required for efficient
combustion. The end result is the same, we now have a larger mass of air being
heated by the same (ie former) amount of fuel, which results in lower combustion
temperature AND less available O2 for NOx formation BY MASS. Both lower combustion
temperatures AND less available O2 for the mass of air after EGR result in a
reduced production of NOx.

If you want to be precise your use of the term "inert gases" would only include
helium, neon, argon, krypton, and the other noble gases. Most of these do not
contribute significantly to the combustion process :-).

I stated from the beginning that my explanation was simplified and missed some
engineering points. The original poster asked for a definition in laymans terms,
not the whole chemical/physics dissertation. I have 15 years of experiance in NOx
reduction in both internal and external combustion processes and understand it
very well. I have written and conducted a 40 hour course on NOx reduction for the
power production industry that was well accepted and used as a standard text by
one of the major corporations involved in that process. I didnt think the original
poster wanted the entirety of my knowledge on the subject. In other
words...excuuuuuuuuse me for answering a question in the manner the person
requested instead of the way a professor wants on the test.

> In the never ending search to get my '79 351M running like new, I checked my
> EGR valve tonight looking for the source of an inconsistent idle. The
> manual says if I rev the engine to 2500 rpm I should see the EGR move and
> then oscillate. Nothing moved. So I pulled the vacuum line off the EGR
> valve and hooked up the vacuum gauge. Strong vacuum at 2500 rpm. So the
> valve is bad but my understanding is that this will cause high NOx emissions
> but should not affect driveability. Is this correct?
>
> later,
> dale c
>
> +-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1961 thru 1979 --------------+
> | Send posts to fordtrucks61-79 listservice.net, |
> | List removal information is on the web site. |
> +---------- Visit Our Web Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/ ----------+

In the main, yes you are correct. Some carbs are calibrated specifically for EGR
so there might be a slight mis-tuning there. The question however, is why?
Properly working (and I can't stress that enough) EGR does little to affect
driveability or full throttle power. Why not replace the faulty EGR valve and
keep the Feds happy?

Rick Brewster
73 F-100, 460 by Lincoln

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 02:17:04 -0800
From:
Subject: Re: perogie ford

....

To access the rest of this feature you must be a logged in Registered User
Of Ford Truck Enthusiasts

Registration is free, easy and gives you access to more features.
If you are not registered, click here
to register.
If you are already registered, you can login here.

If you are already logged in and are seeing this message, your web browser is blocking session
cookies. Change your browser cookie settings to allow session cookies.

This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.